Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trivia sections/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Trivia articles

I'm not yet decided on this proposal, but I was wondering what those in its favour suggest are done with articles dedicated to trivia, such as List of trivia lists. BigBlueFish 14:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

That list is an abonation of needed cleanup. Circeus 15:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Rename

I've renamed the proposal, as some of the oppose votes were b/c of the misleading title. Btw, when did this ever become a poll? Anyway, let the discussion continue. --Osbus 21:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources

I agree with this proposal in general, as I strongly advocate eliminating such sections altogether. However, I can support this mild proposal for now, pending stronger wording in some future proposal stating that trivia sections should be deleted on sight. Nevertheless, the current policy skirts one of the major problems with trivia sections: The facts in them are almost never sourced as required by WP:CITE. Perhaps a stern warning could be added to the proposal regarding the absolute necessity of providing a source if you don't want your random fact about Napoleon's cat removed from the article. — BrianSmithson 14:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I doubt anyone will change their vote if I update it appropriately. Deco 11:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal in action

Today I put this proposal into action with the article on ER (TV series). I made two edits which decimated the trivia section of that article by moving the information from the trivia section into other sections of the text. If you wish, you may use that article as an example. There is still a trivia section in the article, however, it is greatly reduced from appoximately 20 items down to 5.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 21:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

During a massive cleanup of The X-Files page, we did the same thing. Trivia that was valid/important to the show was incorporated into the appropriate section in a more encyclopedic manner. Any trivia that was felt unnecessary was moved to the talk page, so that people could discuss whether they thought it was valid or not (not much argument on these by the way). This has worked really well and the trivia section is reduced and the article is better partly because it's inflected with those interesting bits of info as you read. - Zepheus 00:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this is a good approach.

Recently I've been moving trivia sections in their entirity to the talk page, and calling for anyone there to help integrate it into the article. Is this a good way to handle the problem? -- Digital Watches! 05:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a bit drastic personally. If there are many watchers, and they can take quick action in getting a section back on the article, it might be okay. But at least some of the items in a typical trivia list are of sufficient interest that I'd rather give the reader an unfiltered list than nothing at all. Deco 09:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps putting a note on the talk page without moving the trivia section would inform editors that this guideline exists. I appreciate that these lists can be considered as a way of holding information pending integration into the article, but a lot of editors add to the list in good faith, and I think they believe that they have achieved an aim, because they don't know that the aim is integration. Informing them would be more desirable than alienating them. If the message on the talk page noted the existence of the trivia section, and requested interested editors to work on integrating/eliminating - and contains a link to this article - it might help new editors understand what the aim is. Rossrs 14:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Or.... I just noticed the "the trivia is too large" template in the message above. I wonder if a "please help us integrate this trivia" template would be useful. Rossrs 14:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll reword the {{toomuchtrivia}} template, to include the word integrate. That should then cover both situations. -Quiddity 18:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Natch, someone already did, but the template above was subst'd. I'll re-transclude it. -Quiddity 18:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I'll use that from now on. Thanks for the advice. -- Digital Watches! 18:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not exactly what I meant, though it is much better. I think the template could and should be a bit more direct and have made a suggestion above. Rossrs 08:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused

Is wikipedia pro or con with Trivia?TKGB 02:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Trivial Pursuit game. —Centrx→talk • 04:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Neither really. Deco 04:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

They are considered a necessary evil. They serve a purpose, of allowing a space for people who cannot write well, to dump facts/contributions, without screwing up what is there. But, they should be integrated into the article or deleted by someone competant, ASAP. --Quiddity 05:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

And someone who can spell Albatross2147 13:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Notes

There should be a guideline on this page saying that many trivia's that can't be integrated to the article, instead of being deleted, can be added into a "Notes" section; one such example can be seen in here. Michaelas10 (T|C) 23:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Such a solution isn't ideal because it's messy; it works in books, but not nearly as well in webpages. We shouldn't make readers flip back and forth between sections of the page. Johnleemk | Talk 15:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think this is a great idea as long as there are restrictions in place. For example, if a piece of trivia has a direct relationship to an important point made in an established section, it should be permitted. —Viriditas | Talk 03:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Most "notes" really shouldn't be trivia in the normal sense, but rather... notes that might put something in a better context, etc. You could see them as trivia, but they're supposed to aid other parts of the article, rather than just list information. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. Trivia doesn't fulfill the role of a note. I'm inferring that some trivia might meet that qualification, and should be elevated to note status in a particular instance, however I'm already running into problems with grouping related trivia into new sections. I decided to do a little experiment on The Departed. I noticed that there was enough film homage in the trivia section to start a new subtopic, but before I had a chance to even rewrite it, an anon started to expand it tangentialy, in effect trivializing the trivia. I don't want to cry, so I am forcing myself to laugh at this spectacle. Perhaps someone is having a little fun at my expense. ;-). —Viriditas | Talk 07:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

{{toomuchtrivia}} and category rename discussion

I have started a debate at Template talk:Toomuchtrivia regarding whether the templates should be renamed, as per WP:AVTRIV guidelines. --tgheretford (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Template

I've used the template a few times, and people just remove it without any comment on either the talk page or in their edit summaries. I guess people love those irrelevant trivia lists. What are we supposed to do? I'm going to go back to the bear article and try to fix it, but I expect that my hard work will be reverted by people who think that lists are the proper way to organize an article. Is there any recourse? What can be done about this? Mr Spunky Toffee 23:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I just got rid of the lists of trivia by incorporating the info into the article, removing a few irrelevant things, and turning lists into paragraphs. I wonder how long it will take for someone to revert my work. I hope no one does, and I hope this method will work to get rid of trivia and pop culture lists. Mr Spunky Toffee 01:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I love to get rid of trivia lists - merge the important items into the mainline sections, junk the rest - and I label my edit summaries as "Death to trivia sections!" That intimidates a few I hope ... Wasted Time R 01:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

• As of 22:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC), there are 546 articles on wikipedia which have too much trivia. This is 547.
• On wikipedia, trivia often comes in the form of listcruft or fancruft.
• There is a whole article about trivia and wikipedia. Actually, there's some listcruft too.

I almost put it in the article.... The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Agressive trivia removal

Can you guys rein in User:L0b0t? He's agressively removing trivia sections from at least one article despite objections from editors of the page, and making no effort to actually integrate the text of the section into the article. Plus it's a new article (2006 World Series) we just haven't had time to make it very refined yet, but the section contains some useful information. Is this the way this guideline is intended to be used, to remove content from articles against the wishes of active editors of those articles? --W.marsh 23:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it sourced? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like he's moving quotes out, not trivia. Wasted Time R 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sectstub tags

I've noticed a few sectstub tags in trivia sections, which essentially goes against this guideline. I was wondering if we can do two things: run a bot to remove expansion tags from trivia sections; and add a small, polite proscription to the trivia and related expansion guidelines (?) asking editors to refrain from tagging trivia sections for expansion. —Viriditas | Talk 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)